This is not what I mean either, while the value of life in the society we live in right now seems to be almost equal to zero, I ask:Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
I don't know, I think it often depends on the position of a creature as it is relevant to us individually. Look at the 'War on Terror', for example. The loss of lives of American civilians in 9/11 was greatly mourned by most of the Western world, however civilian villages in Afghanistan are treated markedly differently in the media etc.
Dont worry about it, you probably wrote it fine, I probably just read it wrong.Originally posted by Dottie
@Tyb: That was not what i meant, sorry for not makeing myself clear. What I asked for was the value of a existance not the value of your own. And with a theoretical level i meant what moral people usaly try to follow, and what moral we should strive to incorporate in our society, and in this sense I think most people value (atleast human) lifes rather much. On a personal level however, most people seem to mourn thier pets more than a life of a human unknown, so what is it that guid us - consciensly or sub-consciencly there?
Since ode didnt get it either i suspect the problem to be mine.Originally posted by Tybaltus
Dont worry about it, you probably wrote it fine, I probably just read it wrong.
Assuming you think its good that people follow the rules set by religous dogma, What exactly defines the worth of a life according to that dogma you are familiar with (again assuming you agree with it)? That is my question, or one of them.
-What moral people usually try to follow:
I think they try to follow religeous values and if an athiest-(I wouldnt really know) it could be any personal values based on the laws that they grew up around. Like when one goes to school, they are taught not to inflict pain on one another. The morals of most people are usually based purely around what they grow up around and certain rules are glued to their heads. If they were religeous, than they would incorperate those values in their life.
This is indeed what i meant with the other question
-mourning of pets over unknown humans?
I think this is quite concious acting because what makes one care about another is personal connection with other living beings, whether animal or human. I mourned the death of my tropical bird more than I mourned the death of my grandfather because I didnt know my grandfather. He never stopped by, so I lost human contact with him. However with my pet, we loved eachother very much and I had a connection with him for 9 years.
However i think so much is obvious that it has something to do with your personal connection to that being. What im after here is exactly what that connection consists of. How well you know someone doesnt seem to be the only defining factor here, as you can both know a person rather well, and dislike him very much.ROFL.
Well did I get it right this time? Or am I just not getting it. If Im not getting it, then I want to see other peoples answers before I post mine. If I got it right, then Hooray!
Assuming you think its good that people follow the rules set by religous dogma, What exactly defines the worth of a life according to that dogma you are familiar with (again assuming you agree with it)? That is my question, or one of them.
This is indeed what i meant with the other question However i think so much is obvious that it has something to do with your personal connection to that being. What im after here is exactly what that connection consists of. How well you know someone doesnt seem to be the only defining factor here, as you can both know a person rather well, and dislike him very much.
1. What should the value be defined by at a global level, and why? 2. What does define the value you personally place in a life?
Now you're missunderstanding me again. Im not asking for what makes your life worth living, im asking what makes another life valuable to you (the personal question) and to you and society on a more objective/teorethical level.Originally posted by Tybaltus
Well Im getting closer to the answer.....
What defines the worth of life according to that dogma you are familiar with?
For me that would be Christianity (Protestant). What defines the worth of life? Hmmm. I guess it would be: follow the word of the Bible and I believe it also promotes trying to get others to follow the path of Christianity. Ive had conversations with athiests about religeon, but since I am so respective of another one's religeous beliefs, I think it would be impossible for me to change one's religeous beliefs because I would feel that I would be disrepsectful to tell them they are wrong and they should convert to Christianity. I just cant do that. But I know, just follow the word of the Bible and life is worthwhile is a common thought among Christians. I think according to us, life is just as important as the after life, and in order to reach the altima of the after life (Heaven), one must follow the word of the Bible in life.
I understand this, but I cant really see how it connects to my question. If you're not argueing that all connections between humans are really caused by peer preassure and fear of lonliness, wich I find highly unlikely.
Well there might be some sub-concious thought involved in feeling of hate and such. This works at many, many different levels. I know people can dislike or even hate one another through peer pressure, or just by the opinions that they grew up around. Examples of this: I will start with a light example and then I will get into the heavier stuff. A "nerd" at school. Why do the "popular" people want to beat him up? I think peer pressure gets to them and they feel they need to live up to their popularity to ostracize the "nerd". I know this personally, because when I went through high school, I decided to hang out with both popular students and the "nerds". I was more friends with the "nerds" but I also wanted to be part of the popular group too, and made some friends when I was there. And when I was witth the popular group, I felt pressured to ignore those of the "nerd" group. I am ashamed to admit, I sometimes did, and I regret doing that the couple times I did. Fortunetly, I realized I was doing something wrong.
There are deeper things than the "nerd" vs popular-but I really feel uncomfortable to go into them.
And more reasons why one dislikes eachother is sometimes personalities clash. I hope I dont have to go deeper into this because its hard to explain. But it happens.
But is this aplicable to humans as well? Is the "connection" caused by ownership, or is it made up of something entirely differnet?
But back to the question-What the connection consists of- positive and mutual personal feeling toward eachother. Most pets like you, because they could identify that you are their parent or the caretaker and, naturally, they feel an immediate connection to you.
Have patiance with my poor explanations, english isnt my native language.
So Im pretty sure Ive gone off on tangents on this post, but I hope this is what you are looking for. If not, then ARGH! I will try again!
Im not getting what you're argueing for here, first you claim death to be natural (does that make it moraly justifieable?) Then you critisize the distribution of wealth because it could save more lifes if it were more fair.Originally posted by Obsidian
I don't think their can be a global value on life. A loss of life shouldn't be viewed as a tragedy but a coure in the natural world. The first world nations especially however, try to overcome this natural barrier by pouring vast amounts of money into medicine and advanced medical treatment to add a few years onto life, where in developing nations, a fraction of that money could save an exponenantiol number more lives rather then mere years.
On a personal level I agree with this, but exaclty what defines the worth here?
What I'm saying, is that the value of life is highly subjective. Therefore a pet can be worth more then a human life.
Now you're missunderstanding me again. Im not asking for what makes your life worth living, im asking what makes another life valuable to you (the personal question) and to you and society on a more objective/teorethical level.
I understand this, but I cant really see how it connects to my question. If you're not argueing that all connections between humans are really caused by peer preassure and fear of lonliness, wich I find highly unlikely.
But is this aplicable to humans as well? Is the "connection" caused by ownership, or is it made up of something entirely differnet?
Nontheless, thanks for trying to provide an answer.Originally posted by Tybaltus
You know what? Im going to give up on this question for now. Ill come back to it eventually. All this deep thought has made my mind feel like its gone down an abyss.
ROFL
Yes, I know I got lost in the question. When you said something like a person disliking another person a couple of posts ago, I decided to turn that into a story.
Yes, this was what i meant. But if we should try to change our society for the better, isnt it neccessary then to agree on what 'better' actaully is? What moral values do you think should be built into a society of your choice?
1. I do not think there is an objective value to any life other than that it is life and thus it is part of upholding the ecosystem on this planet. Many lifeforms can also experience suffering and pain, and no life should be forced to suffer IMO. Not a human being, not a worm.
Im more concerned about the emotional value than the utilistic one here. You too talk about a connection. What is that connection made of? I guess it as simple as the ones whos death will have the most negative emotional effect on you are the ones you value the most (in the emotional aspect)? in that case, what decides the size of the negative emotional effect?2. Subjectively, life will have a relative value to me depending on my personal connection to the life form in question. This subjective worth a life form has to me, can be emotional (like in personal relationships) or intellectual and utilistic (like in valuing the life of a scientist high because s/he is close to a breakthrough in finding a vaccin agains HIV).
Good I seemed to understand your question right at leastOriginally posted by Dottie
Yes, this was what i meant. But if we should try to change our society for the better, isnt it neccessary then to agree on what 'better' actaully is? What moral values do you think should be built into a society of your choice?
Yes, if wish to work for a better society we must agree about moral standards and values about what is better or worse. The moral values I personally would like to see in a soceity are fairly similar to the UN:s human rights declaration + a lot more. It would be an extremly long post to describe it, are you sure you want to hear? Also you talk about a value in upholding the ecosystem, does that mean you assign a moral value to the ecosystem itself, or is it only for your personal survival that you want it uphold?
My reference to the ecosystem was just because all life strives to survive and life forms adapt according to this (ie evolutionary mechanisms like adaptation and different types of selection). IMO we can't attribute moral to nature, I don't. I think there is no moral system in life on earth as a system. What we sometimes view as moral in nature is IMO selection and survival mechanisms. An abstract moral in the sense humans can potentially have due to our self-awareness and all that, is probably specific for our species. As humans, we have much more choices, the same ones as other species and additional ones - that's why we can attribute moral to humans but not a leopard. OK, let's skip the utilistic stuff for now.Im more concerned about the emotional value than the utilistic one here. You too talk about a connection. What is that connection made of? I guess it as simple as the ones whos death will have the most negative emotional effect on you are the ones you value the most (in the emotional aspect)? in that case, what decides the size of the negative emotional effect?
I do not wish you to describe your entire ethical system for me, I wish you to explaine what it is that makes lifes valuable. Or if you dont think they are in a objective sense what do you think the qualities are that we should choose to assing value to.Originally posted by C Elegans
Good I seemed to understand your question right at least Yes, if wish to work for a better society we must agree about moral standards and values about what is better or worse. The moral values I personally would like to see in a soceity are fairly similar to the UN:s human rights declaration + a lot more. It would be an extremly long post to describe it, are you sure you want to hear?
I dont think I am, and that was part of my point with this thread. UN:s human rights declaration for example is as far as i know extremly humanocentric without giving a reason for being so. What I was looking for was a way to evaluate the worth of any life (including forms that we have yet to encounter, like Gods, Thinking machines, aliens, Creatures that will eventually evlolve here on earth as well as creatures now in existance, like young/old humans insects apes etc.) that both fits with the opinions that I hold right now, and doesnt seem completely arbitrary. A difficult task indeed, but the answers i have come up with on my own are extremely unsatisfying.
Neither. You're so humanocentric!
My reference to the ecosystem was just because all life strives to survive and life forms adapt according to this (ie evolutionary mechanisms like adaptation and different types of selection). IMO we can't attribute moral to nature, I don't. I think there is no moral system in life on earth as a system. What we sometimes view as moral in nature is IMO selection and survival mechanisms. An abstract moral in the sense humans can potentially have due to our self-awareness and all that, is probably specific for our species. As humans, we have much more choices, the same ones as other species and additional ones - that's why we can attribute moral to humans but not a leopard.
I meant what is the cause of the bond, not in a evolutionary sense, but In your personal experience what makes you attached to people/animals?
OK, let's skip the utilistic stuff for now.
Connection = attatchment or bond as I described it in the love thread. Emotional attatchment is a psychologial mechanism, made of necessity for group bonding for survival. I am not sure what you mean by "made of", do you mean a description of the nature of the bond, the physiological and psychological qualities? Or do you mean how it is subjectively experienced (by me? by people in general?)
Yes, this is what I meant.
To me personally, it is not as simple as a linear correlation between degree of negative emotion and degree of personal value. Other factors than affect the "effect size" are for instance the age of the person (I accept an old person's death easier than a younger person's), the person's social situation (does the person have other people depending on it? I would feel very sad if my best friend died, not only because of my personal loss, I would also feel sad for her little son. Empaty towards others can increase your personal grief.) and how the person died (degree of suffering, etc).
But there is also the degree of personal value here, right? And here we are back to my original question, what cause that value in a human/animal, what makes you personally attached. Technically the statement should be an existence...Originally posted by Dottie
a existance
